Re: Unix shell versus Perl

[starbolin]

As eyepopslikeamosquito and mr_mischief point out there are important differences between perl's interpreter and others. However I was attempting, albeit poorly, to point out that simply saying "shells are bad because they're interpreted" could backfire if you are trying to sell perl. My concern fell out of some confusion I had when reading the OP as to whether, briefly, he was talking about shells or perl in regards to interpreters.

As a separate caution, those PHBs unfamiliar with perl can be uneasy with perl's power and diversity. It may be best to soft-sell these points and concentrate on portability and organizational issues where having 'one code to rule' offers clear advantages.

I apologize that my previous post was cryptic and confusing and I thank eyepopslikeamosquito and mr_mischief for setting me straight. I am well aware, however, of perl's capabilities and I love beautiful perl code like the rest of the Monks here. However not all of perl's features are optimized for systems programing and I find some of it's features to be quite clunky in those applications. I think the Perl Evangelist would profit well in gleaning from fellow Monks which characteristics offer a clear, and easy to communicate, distinction with other shells. The likewise said evangelist would profit well in avoiding those comparisons which could be misconstrued by the casual observer as symantic sugar.